Friday, May 1, 2009

PRESIDENT OBAMA POISED TO PICK HIS FIRST SUPREME COURT JUSTICE

Associate Justice David Souter will retire at the end of this term. Justice Souter. a Republican appointee, became known as a great advocate of individual rights. In all likelihood the Democrats will have the 60 vote super-majority needed to block a Republican filibuster of the President’s nominee.

The other day I was listening to the oral argument in a Voting Rights case. The so called conservative wing members of the Court (there is nothing conservative about this group - they are just judicial activists driven to expand governmental control over our lives) were suggesting that the Voting Rights Act may be unconstitutional because it is not enforced against Northern states which may seek to dilute the vote of minorities. It was almost frightening to listen to their questions.

As even the attorney representing the party who brought the suit reminded the court, it is not an issue in the case, the conservative members nonetheless kept on pushing the issue. Why should only the Southern states with a long history of discrimination at the voting booth be held accountable and not the Northern states? While the question may be valid, it does not justify throwing out the Voting Rights Act which in effect would allow for the return of denial of the right to vote for certain minorities.

The Supreme Court has no business debating good social policy. Whether Congress was correct in the first instance of only including states which had specific policies designed to block blacks from voting is not a matter for the Supreme Court. The Fifteenth Amendment clearly authorizes Congress to enacted a Voting Rights Act.

Until through Presidential appointment the voices of the radical judicial activists such as Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are diluted, our rights will always be threatened. I find it interesting the so called conservative supporters of these 4 judicial activists remain silent in face of the reality that these 4 judicial activists cannot seem to find a viable argument against governmental intrusion into our lives.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

I didn't listen to the argument and can't comment towards that. I will say that I thought most JD's learn to NEVER say the word "clearly". If anything was clear, the world would not need JD's.

The constructionists and the interpretationists both serve very important purposes.

I cannot, however let a statement like, “… conservative… group… are just judicial activists driven to expand governmental control over our lives” stand without challenge.

I suppose we should just ignore decisions such as Kelo v. City of New London or District of Columbia v. Heller, both of which symbolically, yet completely contradict your assertion?

BobbyWC said...

see top left hand corner